Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 8768713" data-attributes="member: 18">Or you could just have a Fighter that, as a baseline, was a little more mechanical and worked a bit better, and there could be a special dumbed-down version for the increasingly few people (mostly grogs) who actually wanted that, rather than the default being so featureless and Feat-reliant.Also you accidentally bring up another issue with 5E - weapons. They're incredibly boring. They're just complicated enough to be mildly annoying (unlike, say, OD&D), but they're not complicated enough to be engaging or interesting (unlike 3E/4E, even 2E, arguably).You also bring up another issue - the "tactical options", most of which rely entirely on you using your Reaction. And that just doesn't work well in 5E, because you get one Reaction, and only one, per turn, ever. Which I get the design behind, but the "tactical options" are pathetic, because they're pretty much all balanced as if you had multiple Reactions, like 2E/3E/4E, i.e. they're typically very poor bang for your buck, whatever the cost is.Really, what you're doing here is illustrating my point. 5E is an upgrade from 3E for martials, in terms of relative power, but not a huge one (it did more to squash down full casters than bring up martials, but a downgrade in terms of interesting-ness from 3E, and a massive downgrade in both from 4E. It's perfectly reasonable and right to feel that that is not a good thing, and was a serious mistake, and should be address. You've put no real counter-arguments, just workarounds which as I've said, don't really work.And not a single thing you've suggested addresses one of the most fundamental issues with Fighters - doing anything at all successfully outside of combat, except Athletics checks, and even then the Paladin is likely just as good, and the Barbarian is likely considerably better. That's just outright bad design. That's not something you can fix in a reasonable way with existing rules. It requires a redesign, and hope 1D&D will achieve that. Fighters just got underdesigned for both outside-combat pillars.The only light at the end of the tunnel here, and hopefully it's not Mirage Arcana or something, is that 1D&D changing how Feats work hopefully means they won't design the 1D&D Fighter to rely on "I got more Feats than other people" in the same way (because level-locking Feats will make the Fighter "Feat advantage" potentially significantly less useful), which will also potentially open things up design-wise on the Fighter subclasses. I'm fine with there still being a "Fighter for buzzed grogs*", but like, make the same thing for the other classes if you're going to do that, and if you can't do it for the other classes, just don't do it. Don't penalize an entire class for a tiny subset of people who play it.* = I mean it's not like I'm never a buzzed grog, but you get my point I think.</blockquote>

Verification